[Matthew]

I was looking through the original "Ode to Reality" thread yesterday, and noticed there was two types of content.

A) Gratuitous statements, that could ONLY be construed as poisoning the well, ad hominem, etc. which have no place in ANY rational argument, or any message board.

B) Arguments with Gladius about this or that. Requiring Gladius to defend his actions, etc.

Everything under type A is gratuitous -- needless -- and hence should/will be censored (deleted). Many statements were thrown in (out of passion?) that only confuse the argument and add nothing whatsoever to it.

I noticed just how much "Type A" there was coming from William. I had to censor quite a bit of the "personal attack fluff" and you can see just how repetitious and empty his actual arguments were!

I saw all kinds of wild speculation regarding personal things about Gladius that William couldn't possibly know. It was completely extraneous to the argument at hand -- but it served William's purpose to "take down Gladius" in people's eyes.

Let's just say it makes arguing easier, when needless personal attacks are removed. What purpose do they serve? What could William say? "They help my argument, because they help "poison the well"!  Sorry, "poisoning the well" and "ad hominem" are logical fallacies -- so many ways of FORFEITING an argument.

Joe: If you put water in a freezer, it will solidify.
Bob: Says Joe, the mental patient!

Note how Bob isn't dealing with the substance of the argument at all, but is resorting to personal attack.

[Elizabeth]

Gladius is a much easier target than Mr. Gebel.  I suspect

they are using Gladius as a decoy in order to deflect attention

from Mr. Gebel's letter.

Mr. Gebel's letter is not satirical, not even slightly so.  I think

they would much rather talk about something other

 than Mr. Gebel's letter.

After all, if GV is a mental case, who would even care?

Nut cases come and go.  Mr. Gebel was there for 20 years.

[sedetrad]

Elizabeth,

You are spot on.

[Matthew]

Here is another way to look at these threads.

They are an argument, right? Kind of like an argument in court?

What if the prosecuting attorney in a murder case, during his testimony, said something like:

"Which is when this murderer here pulled the trigger and killed my client's wife."

The Defense attorney would certainly stand up and say loudly:
"OBJECTION! Your honor, that is for this court to determine."

And the Judge would say, "Sustained. The prosecution will not anticipate the judgment of this court. Please stick to the facts of the case."

I saw PLENTY of statements like that coming from William's keyboard. He alleges things, and then treats them as facts -- without any proof (how ironic is that!)

Matthew